Torture Ban doesn't apply to Gitmo?

Surprising practically no one that can comprehend above a third-grade level - attorneys for the Bush Justice Department have just declared King's X on the McCain Torture Ban in relation to facilities like Gitmo. Like Duh...

From the Washington Post:

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban
McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison

By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 3, 2006; A04

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.

Yeah, "We absolutely do not torture -- except for when we do...". In an effort to force a detainee to break his hunger strike, U.S. military personnel used a device they call a "restraint chair".

In Bawazir's case, the government claims that it had to forcefully intervene in a hunger strike that was causing his weight to drop dangerously. In January, officials strapped Bawazir into a special chair, put a larger tube than they had previously used through his nose and kept him restrained for nearly two hours at a time to make sure he did not purge the food he was being given, the government and Bawazir's attorneys said.

Richard Murphy Jr., Bawazir's attorney, said his client gave in to the new techniques and began eating solid food days after the first use of the restraint chair. Murphy said the military deliberately made the process painful and embarrassing, noting that Bawazir soiled himself because of the approach.

Now we know what a signing statement really means - it's a pre-emptive court challenge to future court proceeding when the President has decided he doens't feels like obeying the law, not to mention the Constitution prohibition against 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment."

It's crap like this that should make everyone wonder - even if they do reach and agreement on the Patriot Act (which just passed the Senate today) will President Bush even abide by it?

Vyan